Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

afcertain what that is can be no proof of the text's being originally intended to have more fignifications than one.

Object. III. "Do not you allow of types and fhadows? or that "perfons and actions, under the Old Teftament, were types of "Jefus Chrift, or of fomething under the Chriftian difpenfation? "And, if you allow of types, you must allow of double fenfes in "fome texts; or that fome paffages of Scripture, befides their im"mediate and direct meaning, had also a further, i. e, a mystical "or typical fignification."

[ocr errors]

Anfwer. I acknowledge that God was the author of both difpenfa, tations, viz." the law of Mofes," and "the gospel of our Lord Jefus Chrift:" that, before he put either of them in execution, he had the plan of both clear in his own mind; that in feveral things there is a refemblance between them; and that God not only forefaw that refemblance, but also intended it; that, wherever the law or the prophets have declared, that the rites and ce remonies of the Mofaic conftitution were intended to point out a moral obligation, or to prefigure the Meffiah, or fomething in the Chriftian difpenfation, there that moral intention, or prophetic prefiguration, is the one, true fenfe of the text, But, where neither the law, nor the prophets, have pointed out fuch an intention, there the resemblance between the two difpenfations could not be discovered till the events, which bear a refemblance to former things, were come to pafs. Then, indeed, fuch a fimilitude would illuftrate fuch events; intimate that the two difpenfations had oneand the fame author; and facilitate the spread of Chriftianity among the Jews. But difcerning that refemblance between the two difpenfations muft arife from having them both before us, and comparing the one with the other; and not from the double fenfe of any text of Scripture in the Old Testament or in the New.

As to types, in the common acceptation of that word, there were feveral under the Old Teftament. [See Ifai. xx. 1, &c. Jer. xiii. 1. &c. and xviii. 1, &c. and xix. 1, &c. and xxiv. 1, &c. and xxvii. 1, &c. and xxviii. 10, &c. and li. 63, 64. Ezek. ii. 8, &c. and iii, 1, &c. and iv. 1, &c. and v. 1, &c. and vii. 23. and xii. 1-20. and xxxvii. 1, &c. Hof. i. 2, &c. and iii. 1, &c. Zach. xi. 7, &c.]. In this fenfe alfo our Saviour's curfing the barren fig-tree was typica! of the deftruction of the nation of the Jews, who had leaves, but no fruit, made a great fhew and profethon of religion, without bringing forth the fruits of holiness and righteoufnets. [Matth, xxi. 18, c. Mark xi. 12, &c. with which compare Luke xiii, 6, &c.] And fo was Agabus's taking up St. Paul's girdle. to bind his own hands and feet, in order to foretell that the apofle fhould be fo bound at ferufalem. [Acts xxi. 10, &c.]. In all these cafes, it is evident that the defign was, by fuch perfons, things, or actions, to prefigure fuch and fuch future events. And the typical fenfe there is the one, true fenfe of the place; as any one may fee by examining the feveral paffages with any tolerable care and attention. Obje

Obje&. IV. " Are not many paffages in the New Teftament taken from the Old Teftament, and ufed in a quite different fenfe from what they have as they ftand in the original writer? And muft not these be called double fenfes of the words of facred "Scripture ?"

Anfier. It is acknowledged that our Lord, and his apoftles and evangelifts, have taken feveral paffages from the Old Teftament; and used them in a very different fenfe from what they have as connected with the place from whence they were taken. But that will not prove a double fenfe of the words. I may quote a paffage from Homer or Virgil, Herodotus or Livy, to exprefs my prefent meaning, and in quite another fenfe from what it has in those ancient authors. But that will not prove that thofe ancient authors intended their words fhould be understood in two fenfes. In the original intention, they had only one meaning, In my accommodation of them, they had only one meaning. And, though the fame words may have different ideas affixed to them, and be used by fucceffive fpeakers or writers in various fenfes; yet that does not prove that, in the original intention, they had more than one fignification.

Object. V. "Is not the epiftle to the Hebrews a strong proof of "double fenfes? And has not the author of it abundantly fhewn, that "in the fpiritual meaning of the law of Mofes was contained the gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chrift?"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Anfwer. The author of the epiftle to the Hebrews has argued very justly, as will plainly appear, when the defign of his writing is attended to, and his argument clearly understood.-The Hebrew Chriftians were in danger of apoftatizing from the gofpel, and of returning to the Jewish religion again. And they were induced to that change, partly out of fear of perfecution from the unbelieving Jews, and partly by the fubtile arguments which they alledged. Befides proper arguments to fupport them under perfecution, or the profpect of it, the apoftle answers the arguments of the unbelieving Jews, and that very folidly, q. d. You prefer the law of Mofes as more excellent than the gofpel of Chrift. But let us compare them together, and fee wherein they refemble one another, and wherein they differ. And from fuch a comparison it will appear, that, in both refpects, the gofpel has the advantage. And will you go back from a better difpenfation to a worfe? Was the law given by angels? The gofpel was given by our Lord Jefus Chrift, who is the head of the angels, and to whom they are all in fubjection. Was Mofes, the fervant of God, the great Jewish lawgiver? A greater and more excellent perfon, Jefus, the fon of • God, is the great Chriftian lawgiver. Did Joshua give the people of Ifrael reft, after they had paffed though the wilderness; and fettle them in the land of Canaan? That was not the final reft; for king David spoke of another reft long after; even the final reft of God's people, which Jefus will give us in the heavenly Canaan, and which is perfect, and durable. There remaineth, therefore, that everlasting reft for the people of God.-Had the Jews a

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'fucceffion

fucceffion of mortal men for their high priests? Jefus Chrift is our great high priest, and is not fucceded by any, but has an unchangeable priesthood; a priesthood which resembles not that of Aaron, but of Melchizedec, who was both king and priest of the most high God, who is not reprefented as coming of any prieftly descent, nor as fucceeded by any prieftly line. In like manner, Jefus Chrift is actually both king and priest, not de• fcended from any prieftly line, nor has he any fucceffor in his high ⚫ office and dignity.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Have the Jews had a tabernacle, or temple, in which their priefts used to minifter? Jefus Chrift is gone into the holy of holies; and is a minifter of the true, the heavenly, tabernacle, or temple. The law had only the fhadow, the rough draught, or imperfect delineation, of good things to come. The gospel has the fubftance, and contains thofe very good things themselves. Did the Jews offer the facrifices of bulls and goats? Jefus Chrift has offered himself as a facrifice; and, by that one offering, has perfected for ever thofe that are fanctified.-In fhort, whereinfoever the law of Mofes and the gospel of Christ resemble one another, there the gospel has the preference: whereinfoever they differ there alfo the gofpel is more excellent. And would any wife man go from a more excellent difpenfation, to one that was evidently much lefs excellent?'

All this must be allowed to be very just reasoning. But wherein does it favour double fenfes, or double interpretations, of Holy Scripture?

1.

Object. VI. "What! would you limit the wisdom and power of "God? When God fpeaks to men, he can take in a large compafs; and can easily comprehend more in one fentence, or one word, than fhort-fighted, mortal men can do in a whole volume "of the most profound, elaborate, or comprehenfive writing!"

Anfwer. The matter now in debate is not what God can do, but what he has done. Whatever God can do; whenever he has made á revelation to men, he has always feen fit to reveal his mind and will in fuch a familiar, condefcending manner, as to ufe words and phrafes in the fenfe in which they were commonly used at the time, and in the place, where fuch a revelation was firft given. And, indeed, if he had done otherwife, men could not have underftood him. And revelation not understood would be no revelation at all.

But this objection may be turned juft the other way; and it may be fait to them that make it, "What would you limit the wifdom "and power of God? When God fpeaks to men, will you repre

fent him as fpeaking with the obfcurity or equivocation of an "Heathen oracle? Cannot he fpeak the language of any age or "country in fo clear and intelligible a manner as to have one cer-. "tain and determinate meaning, fo that his words may be under"flood, and his will complied with? Will you allow Homer or Herodotus, Xenophon or Livy, to exprefs themfelves clearly and "diftinctly?

"diftinctly? And cannot the wifdom and power of God equal, or "excell, the moft plain and intelligible of all the writers of antiquity? What method, therefore, can now be taken to interpret any paffage of Scripture; but to confult the original; to examine "it according to the rules of grammar, rhetoric, and close atten❝tion to the age and country, cuftoms and language, of that time and place; the character of the fpeaker, or writer, and of the perfons addreffed to, or spoken of; and the scope and connection of the whole difcourfe?

"When God speaks to men, he certainly knows how to speak to "their apprehenfions. And fuch is his goodness, that one may reasonably expect that he will do fo."

Object. VII. "Do not you too much confine the fense of the "facred writings? and fuppofe the defign and meaning of the "apoftles to be lefs general than it feems to have been? Or, in "other words, do you imagine that the apoftolic epiftles were written only for the ufe of the churches, or perfons, to whom they were addreffed, or to whom they were firft fent? Or how far "do they concern Chriftians in all ages and countries whatever?" Anfwer. I look upon this to be a queftion of very great moment, and which deferves a moft careful confideration.

All the books of the New Teftament (except the Revelation of St. John) feem at firft view to have been merely occafional writings; defigned for fome particular perfons, or churches, or, at the moft, for fome particular countries.

The Revelation of St. John, indeed, does not feem to have been an occafional writing. For that apostle was, by the divine command, ordered to write in a book what was then revealed to him. And, I am forry to fay it, many Chriftians have exceedingly flighted that book; notwithstanding the exprefs order which the apostle had to write it; and the divine declaration at the beginning of that book [Rev. i. 3.1; "Bleffed is he that readeth, and they that hear, "the words of this prophecy; and keep [or obferve'] the things "which are written therein;" and the folemn execration, denouncd at the end of the book, against those who fhall add to it, or diminish from it [Rev. xxii. 18, 19]. The difficulty of fome parts of that book may have difcouraged many from ftudying of it. And others. may perhaps have been induced to flight it, from the prophane and petulant obfervation of a divine of a four wit in the laft age; who has been pleased to call it "a myfterious, extraordinary book; "which perhaps the more it is ftudied, the lefs it is understood; "as generally finding a man crackt, or making him fo." [See South's Sermons, vol. II. p. 467.]. Surely, a moft indecent way of fpeaking of any part of facred Scripture !

St. Matthew's gofpel is faid to have been written for the use of the Jewish Chriftians, more especially in Judæa; to leave among them, when the apoftles were going to preach among the Gentiles. The gospel of St. Mark was written at the request of the brethren at Rome; and more immediately for their afe and benefit. St.

Luke's

Luke's gofpel, and the Acts of the apoftles, feem to have been the first and fecond part of the fame book, infcribed to Theophilus, and perhaps written, at his request, to inform him of the first beginnings of Chriftianity, and of the progrefs which it had made. And Theophilus is thought by fome to have been governor of a province in Greece; or fome great man whom St. Luke had converted to the Chriftian faith.

St. John's gofpel was written at the request of the Chriftians at Ephefus; and as a fupplement to the other three gofpels. And the feveral epiftles were evidently written to particular churches, or perfons, as occafions then required, and more peculiarly fuited to their circumftances.-So far were the books of the New Teftament occafional writings.

But, if St. Matthew's golpel was written in Hebrew, for the use of the Hebrew Chriftians (as fome fuppofe), it must have been tranflated for the ufe of the Hellenift, and Gentile, Chriftians. And the prefent Greek does not carry any marks of a tranflation. St. Matthew, therefore, might poffibly publish it both in Hebrew and Greek. But, however these things be, as it was published in Greek, it must have been defigned for the benefit of Chriftians in general. And, if the brethren of Rome requested it of St. Mark to write his gofpel, and had it firft, others had it afterwards. And it became of public benefit to the Chriftians in general; for whose benefit it was calculated, as well as that of St. Matthew's.--St. Luke's infcribing his golpel and the Acts of the apostles to Theophilus might poffibly be no more than our dedicating a book to fome perfon of eminence; when the book is, nevertheless, intended for the ufe of the public.-St. John's writing his gofpel at the request of the brethren at Ephefus, and that as a fupplement to the other three gofpels, is a plain proof that the other three gofpels were then common among the churches, and well known to the Chriftians; that St. John's gofpel was intended to be as public; and, finally, that the primitive Chriftians were not indifferent about what their Lord had faid and done, but had an ardent defire to know as much as they could with certainty of the doctrine, life, actions, and fufferings, of that dear and eminent perfon.

The apoftolic epiftles were not circular letters, addreffed to the Chriftian church, or to all Chriftians at large; but were, undoubtedly, written upon fome particular occafions; and addreffed to fome particular churches or perfons. But they, nevertheless, fpread into other churches; and were valued and read by other Chriftians. St. Paul expressly ordered fome of his epiftles to be read publicly ; and that not only in the churches to which they were written; but alfo in other churches.-St. Peter had read the epiftles of his beloved brother Paul; not only those written to fome of the churches in Afia minor, but to other churches alfo.-It was, doubtlefs, with a view to their being known and distinguished from any epiftles, which might be forged under his name, that St. Paul wrote the falutation with his own hand, at the end of all his epiftles.

The

[ocr errors]
« PoprzedniaDalej »